M Joel W

The tendency to cover scenes in blockbusters with dozens of cameras rather than one, but without any specific intent behind any of their placement and motion. And then finding the meaning and emotion of the scene in the edit instead of deciding on the intent in the storyboards. And the partial set approach that lets the look be discovered in post as well. None of this is bad by design (Bay, whom I like as a director very much in a few ways, has always taken an intuitive approach with a lot of coverage; so might Ridley Scott; I even liked Avatar a lot and it went full on digital), but even on the lower budget stuff I work on so many decisions are made in post because they can be. Again, it's fine. Why not if you can? It is a very cool thing to be able to do, and can be very useful and even necessary, but when it's taken to its logical conclusion on features with unlimited resources but very specific commercial dictums, that approach that allows you to "direct" after the fact, without any specific intent or vision on set, can be stifling. And like... the director's vision on set is the point of directing. So it betrays that. I talked with a super A list director about his experience going from TV to nine-figure blockbuster and he said that the shooting schedule felt similarly crazy but he (or really, his producers) had infinite control in post to change every little thing after. Not the answer I expected or wanted, but we do romanticize these things. I suppose what I mean is I dislike the tendency of delaying the decisions about the structural and narrative and emotional aspects of the scene from the set to the editing room. Intent should be a malleable through line, not something deferred to the last minute. And even the tendency to over-do it with reshoots, which are not bad by design but can be abused, is trouble. (Liman uses reshoots well. Raimi, too. They aren't bad. CGI isn't bad. It's the abuses and failures in intent that such technique allow for that are bad.) Hobbit was shot on green screen stages with a few master angles and then massive multi-cam coverage, like every contemporary blockbuster. That can be a problem. In that case I think it's probably mostly tied back to the producers' financial need to release the film in time. I can't blame them. But it can be a problem.

I sound forgiving of this stuff, but I'm not. It really upsets me. But I'm glad to have what I can get.

Very weird. Interesting. If I remember it was ENR? The blu ray still looked really stylized to me, but I haven't seen it on film since its release so I have no point of comparison. Both it and War of the Worlds looked good to me on despite the problems. The film grain and halation added texture, and I liked that the camera moves weren't stabilized. Space had physicality. Fincher removes that for a reason, and I get it, but usually those camera bumps work. Most contemporary directors are afraid of even the good and physical flaws (not so with Spielberg and Lynch), but I forgive Fincher because he's intentionally trying to dehumanize the camera. (But that's another story.) A.I. looked good on blu ray, too, and seemed to be a pretty faithful transfer. It's one of my favorite films so I was glad that it was. Great compositing, too. Spielberg really knew how to use CGI as though it were practical, letting it play in the medium shot. But he also used puppets unusually well. Such a great director. This is troubling. Raiders is one of my favorite films (no surprise by now lol) and I remember seeing it on 35mm about a decade ago and really loving it. The over-the-top showy coverage that Kael detested felt inventive in context and in a way seeing it helped me understand Michael Bay's considerable visual talent and the often unfair vitriol critics aim at him (even when his stories are terrible, his eye is good; but Indy also reveals a great eye and a fantastic story to which that eye is keenly attentive). I own the blu ray but haven't watched it. I plan to soon, but I run my projector in "bright mode" which isn't color corrected in the first place (my retroreflective screen was too heavy to ship across country when I moved so I need to use bright mode to compensate) so I won't be able to speak to the color. Fwiw, noise is also the most difficult thing to properly compress and encode so that's another possibility that it was removed to salvage the image that's there as best possible. But in that case, at least let a little bleed through and match the grain rather than destroying it. When I denoise noisy footage I always try to match the noise level to "normal" rather than clean. Some of the modern algorithms are so good that you can improve some footage, but film grain seems to denoise worse than digital noise, which is more predictable in structure. I saw Keanu (shot on Alexa) at the Arclight and it was wonderfully projected, but I noticed that the night exteriors were denoised completely and looked waxy, whereas the rest looked like normal Alexa footage with a bit of nicely textured digital noise (I like the Alexa as digital cameras go). So I sort of suspect that this bullshit is common practice even in theatrical release. Nevertheless I don't think it's worth getting too worked up about. Yes, there's apathy being shown toward films we care about, but these unfortunate changes only get to us if we let them and are only major in context. Butchering the image is nothing new. I've seen 16mm 4x3 prints of scope Preminger movies that were pan-and-scanned many decades ago and were far more unwatchable than the DNR footage I complain about today. The Minority Report blu ray still offered me a great movie, weird DNR and all. But it still makes me want to spend more time going to the New Bev even if I moved out of Koreatown. :) I am a film snob. A big one. Even if I no longer shoot it. Still, it's a real shame. But denoised Indy is still way better than native 3D 48fps Hobbit (not trying to be mean, I think Peter Jackson has talent it's more the trend toward writing by committee and directing in post that bugs me). Edit: Sandra, have you read Bazin?

This is very interesting. I was watching the Minority Report and Schindler's List blu rays and was surprised to see scenes go between relatively grainy and completely clean and waxy, almost as though the grainiest shots were completely degrained and the rest left untouched. Maybe they were. Really ugly. I tried some high quality DNR on a scene in an old Italian cult feature shot on 16mm or 35mm during the 70s maybe and it was a pro res master of the feature from a good source. Worked pretty well but when you had flame or particles they were mooshed just as you saw in the first post here. I've actually used dust and scratches DNR techniques to clean up dust from a set since.

I need to reference grain levels and color for something... does anyone have any (ideally underexposed or moral exposure) 500T or 250D film scans at 2k or 4k? Even a single frame is okay. I just need a reference for grain levels. Thanks!

This guy: http://www.ebay.com/itm/181490031691?euid=a988f9b7e3f844d1828e38a32d5a85ac&cp=1 The buyer indicates that it won't cover super35, although I would have guessed it would. I'm confused how a 16mm lens with a symmetrical design (tessar) can even exist in bayonet mount with a flange focal distance of 52mm. Anyhow, anyone know anything? It wouldn't happen to cover super35, would it? Is there a family of similar lenses... not much info on these guys. I know the Jena vs Zeiss history. More concerned with this particular lens.

Didn't like the movie, but was really impressed by the photography. The open gate Alexa prores I've seen is a bit fuzzy upscaled to 4k, but even sitting in the front row, I couldn't tell when they switched between 65 and Mini for the most part. In the first shot... how did they hide the operator's footsteps in the water? I have no idea. Does anyone suspect the post work was rather extensive? I saw evidence of power windows a bit and possibly even roto to brighten up faces, but some of the scenes were so high contrast I couldn't believe there was an exposure on the face and the footage was much cleaner than Alexa Mini footage I have seen before and worked with, including open gate. The image was great, I feel like the Alexa is unsurpassed for this kind of thing. Not a fan of the direction or script. The Malick aping was very sub-Malick. Beautiful photography, however. Curious to re-watch The New World, which is a great movie.

I'm not trying to keep any secrets, I just don't want to lose jobs because I've posted dumb/obvious questions like these publicly and don't want employers trawling. This has happened to me before, so... Anyhow, I'll contact Tim about deleting my account and post on dvxuser. Thanks.

Didn't realize that. Who could I contact about deleting my account and all associated posts? I don't feel comfortable sharing that information here. Thanks. What forums are available on cinematography where I can post under a handle? Still looking for an answer to this question.

For some poor man's/fill light stuff I need a lamp with the exact color temperature of high pressure sodium. I use storaro yellow, bastard orange, whatever, cts/cto coctails, whatever to get the "look" but to match exactly... Should I buy: http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/rosco-cinegel-3150-industrial-vapor-lighting-gel-filter-sheet.html?gclid=CPr81K2VwL0CFbBj7Aodt3YAyg or Urban vapor? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=583893&gclid=CMD24ZaVwL0CFTMV7AodkRIAUw&Q=&is=REG&A=details Or buy a high pressure sodium light proper?

Sometimes your snark is so clever it's incoherent.

Amazing work! Catching Fire could very well be my second favorite movie of the year (Wolf of Wall Street might end up being the best of the decade, so behind that) and I loved the look of it. The first half in the various districts is so beautiful, particularly the day stuff… loved the cold magic hour look. Did you shoot late day and time for 3200K? Very pretty footage, perfect mood. Couldn't tell how much was real and how much was set extension... the stylization set the right mood and made it all feel real. The interiors are beautiful, too. Did you use mostly practical/pancake lights/soft lights all tungsten with natural light/soft light coming through the windows at 5600K+? Really curious how you lit the day interiors in the first half of the movie, so beautiful. Really the whole movie looks great, though. Excellent compositions, lighting, and great work on the production design/vfx side, too... everything comes together. Middle portion reminded me of Bad Romance, made me wonder if the studio picked Francis Lawrence partially based on his work on that. How did you handle the day-for-night and night exteriors in general during the last half? On stages? Close ups seemed more “lit” or had a bit more contrast… lots of power windows? The effect is good, but I can’t imagine how you shot so many night exteriors in IMAX. Seems daunting. Mix of stages and location and day for night and night for night or all location? AMAZING work. Such artful choices throughout. Can’t wait for the next two. Surprised so much is handheld telephoto. Did not have the shaky cam distant feeling of the first one, much more naturalistic and intimate. Again, great stuff!

That might be a great answer. What about Zodiac was well-blocked, though? I think the movie is an underrated masterpiece, but Fincher and Hitchcock feel more camera-oriented to me. How do you think the best directors learn to block? Obviously it's a matter of practice, but where does one start? I've heard the DVD series is quite good. Something I am curious about.

Done on green screen in Speed Racer. But used "grammatically" very well. Great film. Thought of this 8 years ago... should have done it and been an innovator. :/

The "turning point" thing is good advice. Most scenes that don't place a strong cut at the turning point still indicate it one way or the other. Regarding your earlier comment that blocking is lacking, how do you suggest directors learn to block? Which directors do you watch as reference? Spielberg and Zemeckis I often hear cited, but what sets their blocking, or the blocking of those directors whose work you most appreciate, apart? What ads are particularly well blocked?

It's subjective, rent both cameras and try them out. Not sure what "two stop" difference you're referring to. Both have a similar base ISO and equally as much dynamic range when treated properly in post. Ok... Red claims 13.5 stops, but every reliable test puts both at about 12. That's still a lot. I have my own biases, but you can do good work with both. I find the post workflow on Red to be unpleasant UNLESS your post house is very comfortable with it or you're shooting yourself with a system designed for it. I also find that Canon's cameras are much cleaner at extreme ISOs than the competition. You can punch in more with the Scarlet and adjust white balance in post better, etc. The C300 is a good documentary/ENG-style camera for a small crew and the Scarlet isn't as good for that. Obviously the Scarlet has a nice resolution advantage for vfx.

Thanks! You're right... I will need to decide for myself. I owe you a beer when I get out there, btw. I hear they have Pliny in LA?

Thanks, I have my AC and grip bags I always bring with me anyway, and cuts of my favorite gels. Know how that is. I usually just wet hire at a specific rate and bring what's necessary, but right now it's not my "day job" so I'm not as careful with pricing as I should be on some stuff. Particularly narrative. :unsure: Out of curiosity... I haven't shot a feature in years and nothing too "big" ever, as shooting has not been my career. I wasn't able to support myself right out of school as a DP so I did post. How much would it matter adding a $500,000 made-for-tv movie to one's credits if one's reel is already strong enough without it, but one's resume is lacking in recent feature credits? I do have recent second unit credits on movies of that size or larger, a perquisite provided to me by my job, and they have hinted that if they find low end enough work they might toss me a feature credit, but it's something they've hinted at before and failed to deliver on... If a credit of that size is worth it, maybe I can stick around the year in distant hope. The contract isn't even written up yet for them to produce a lower-budget feature, let alone hire me to shoot it. I don't know why I'd bother, but it's the one thing other than saving up some money that is keeping me at my current job and in the long run I would suck it up if it gave me a better shot as a shooter later.

Look at what people are renting... what there's demand for. Assuming you're planning to rent. If you're working as an owner/op and want to work purely on the basis of what you deliver (and not on what camera you own), of course it's up to you! I think the market for the Alexa has stayed strong for quite a while but it is finally waning. Seeing some VERY affordable Alexa packages on the east coast for the first time. The Epic is of course a dime a dozen now. Red cameras seem to be very hot while a new technology is unavailable but then the market is quickly flooded, wheras fewer people buy Alexas... so while they are cheap now they didn't used to be. I think with digital cameras it's wise to buy at the beginning of a product cycle if you're looking to rent, wise to buy at the end if you want a fun cheap camera for your own personal use. I would not buy either camera right now, but then again I couldn't afford one. Personally I'm an Alexa fan (and quite like what I've seen of the F55, though I've yet to use one), but the Dragon does look cool!

Thanks! I am a C100 owner/op (and own a fair amount of lighting and G&E gear)... I am told that this makes me look "low end," but at the same time I get more of a fee for a wet rental than a dry rental. How different is the owner/op market from the straight DP market? Can I use the camera to get extra work? I like corporate/ads a lot because they are short-term with decent rates. As for networking, it's difficult where I live now as there is no industry here. But I do have friends on the opposite coast already. :)

Hi, I'm moving to the west coast within the next few months to begin pursuing a career as a DP, which has been something I've wanted to do for years but never thought to actually try. :) What I'm not asking for is anything EXCEPT help with logistics for supporting oneself in the meantime and tips for networking. I do have a pretty big network out there already, but I'd like to know how to rise up the ranks and also how to support oneself. I have a LOT of knowledge about post and have color graded a number of reasonably successful made-for-tv features and done compositing, often all the compositing, for them. This is my day job currently. How does one rise up the ranks in a totally new community? My goal is to be a commercial DP primarily, but I'll always love narrative of course. Try to shoot student shorts at major schools and see where they go? Work as a first or a second? In which case… how does one learn to first or second better? I have done both just a tiny bit, but am not experienced at either yet. Start again as a trainee? Shoot when you can and support yourself with other work? My day job is compositing and color, but I want to switch to camera. While I'm just trying to get by... work for central casting/the black list/or get a job at a local post house? I don't want to regress too far... I am giving up a good post job to do this, but it is my dream. Any tips? I do have friends out there with whom I hope to shoot, but no one terribly established yet, and I do know some DPs there with whom I hope to meet up shortly after the move. Thanks all. I shot a few features a while ago, but have mostly been doing shorts and spec stuff (because my schedule is too hectic) also second unit on a few features. Thanks!

Where is this available and is it expensive? Does it work with the C100 and/or 5D Mark III? Also agreed... the camera has nice colors and good lattitude.

Operators I know who know better than I do (as in, they're working on things you might actually have watched) prefer not to use IS at all for dSLR video, as the algorithm is unnatural and twitchy for some lenses. However, dSLRs are skewy and small so there's definitely a need, imo. I find that for the 17-55mm lenses it's not really necessary and for the longer ones it does help. I recently shot a lot on my C100 with the 70-200mm pre-IS as a B cam with the A cam being a shoulder-mounted Alexa and found I could get an ok level of stability with a cheesy Zacuto rig, although the Alexa was still much more stable. So improving how you operate might be the first step and more effective than getting IS on every lens. There's a $25 shoulder rig on Amazon that's really quite nice. I'd recommend that over looking to get IS on every lens. Also, for ultra wides it's totally unnecessary, imo. That said the 70-200mm f2.8 IS is on my wish list!

Yep. I usually count on about 2000w per circuit (or one M18 or 1.2k HMI) in modern locations. I'd be more conservative if you don't have access to the circuit breaker and/or don't know which outlets draw from where. Fluorescent lighting is surely more efficient, but ballasts draw more amps than the lights' wattage would indicate and often fluorescent light isn't really as bright as you'd expect. Color rendering of a good CFL is fine in isolation (though it won't match tungsten exactly if there are practicals or other sources in frame), but what's more efficient: spending $200 getting fluorescent work lights with questionable CRIs or spending $20 on a 500w or 1000w work tungsten work light and using $0.03 more electricity? If your camera is even decently power efficient you'll do fine with tungsten and get a legitimately better, warmer look. If your camera is extremely slow (low ISO) you might need to make some compromises in terms of how you light. Just by pure coincidence, I noticed that someone build a makeshift book light as I described above: http://mattscottvisuals.com/lighting/2013/3/11/diy-beauty-lighting The article is pretty silly. It's just a book light! But it shows that it works.

This will work, but I'd recommend against work lights (or if you get them, get halogen for cheaper and better color rendering). I like chinese lanterns as a cheap option (used in the highest budget movies because they work), but I bet you want softer... Bounce your lights into bead board (white side) for more punch than using diffusion with a decent amount of softness (back the light and board up as needed, remember that softness is predicated on how big the source looks from the perspective of what it's lighting) and without worrying about melting your makeshift gels. http://heatandnoisecontrol.com/Categories/discount_once_used_rigid_foam_board_insulation~7.html Bead board is $10 for an 8X4 at home depot. Cut it up in the store and fit it in your car. Bead board and chinese lanterns are Home Depot-budget items that are used on the biggest sets. They are cheap and cheaper still because you will continue to use them even after adding more expensive gear to your arsenal. Imo. But bouncing into bead is my choice. Add a shower curtain way up front to make a makeshift book light if you need super soft.